Max Hardwick-Morris1,2, Joshua Twiggs2, Kunaal Kacker3, Brad Miles2, Jitendra Balakumar4. 1. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 2. 360 Med Care, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
Background: Acetabular and femoral component positioning are important considerations in reducing adverse outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous assessments of femoral anteversion examined anatomic femoral anteversion (AFA) referenced to anatomic landmarks. However, this does not provide a functional understanding of the femur's relationship to the hip. We investigate a new measurement, functional femoral anteversion (FFA), and sought to measure its variability across a large sample of patients undergoing THA. Methods: A total of 1008 consecutive patients underwent THA surgery between September 2019 and July 2021. All patients were measured for supine and standing functional femoral rotation (FFR), AFA, and FFA. Results: The mean standing FFA was 13.2° ± 12.2° (-27.8° to 52.3°). The mean change in FFR from supine to standing was -2.2° ± 11.8° (-43.0° to 41.9°). Of all, 161 (16%) patients had standing FFA version greater than 25°. Four hundred sixty (46%) patients had standing FFR (internal or external) greater than 10°. One hundred twenty-three (12%) patients exhibited an increase in external rotation from supine to standing of greater than 10°. A moderate, negative linear relationship was observed between AFA and standing external femoral rotation (P <<.001, R = -0.46), indicating people may externally rotate their femur as AFA decreases with age. Conclusions: Functional alignment of the femur in patients requiring THA is understudied. It is now understood that the femur, like the pelvis, can rotate substantially between functional positions. Enhancing our understanding of FFA and FFR may improve both acetabular and femoral component positioning.
Background: Acetabular and femoral component positioning are important considerations in reducing adverse outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous assessments of femoral anteversion examined anatomic femoral anteversion (AFA) referenced to anatomic landmarks. However, this does not provide a functional understanding of the femur's relationship to the hip. We investigate a new measurement, functional femoral anteversion (FFA), and sought to measure its variability across a large sample of patients undergoing THA. Methods: A total of 1008 consecutive patients underwent THA surgery between September 2019 and July 2021. All patients were measured for supine and standing functional femoral rotation (FFR), AFA, and FFA. Results: The mean standing FFA was 13.2° ± 12.2° (-27.8° to 52.3°). The mean change in FFR from supine to standing was -2.2° ± 11.8° (-43.0° to 41.9°). Of all, 161 (16%) patients had standing FFA version greater than 25°. Four hundred sixty (46%) patients had standing FFR (internal or external) greater than 10°. One hundred twenty-three (12%) patients exhibited an increase in external rotation from supine to standing of greater than 10°. A moderate, negative linear relationship was observed between AFA and standing external femoral rotation (P <<.001, R = -0.46), indicating people may externally rotate their femur as AFA decreases with age. Conclusions: Functional alignment of the femur in patients requiring THA is understudied. It is now understood that the femur, like the pelvis, can rotate substantially between functional positions. Enhancing our understanding of FFA and FFR may improve both acetabular and femoral component positioning.
Authors: Anisha B Patel; Rohan R Wagle; Molly M Usrey; Matt T Thompson; Stephen J Incavo; Philip C Noble Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Christina I Esposito; Brian P Gladnick; Yuo-Yu Lee; Stephen Lyman; Timothy M Wright; David J Mayman; Douglas E Padgett Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Maximilian J Hartel; Andreas Petersik; Anne Schmidt; Daniel Kendoff; Jakob Nüchtern; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann; Lars G Grossterlinden Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240